To moderators: I'm sorry, but I didn't know where to post this. I read the warning at the top "Please refrain from discussing religious issues", however, this technically isn't religious...more cultural.
~ The Real Two Nation Theory ~
Is it religion or culture that divides us?
By Ancient Pakistan Facebook Page
NOTE: The map isn't to scale or very accurate. It's crudely drawn, so calm down...this is especially for all you map-Nazis out there.
For all our lives we've been taught that the two-nation theory is based on the fact that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations and therefore cannot coexist as one - hence the formation of two different homelands. But is this actually true? If it is, why did East Pakistan secede to become Bangladesh? Why then does Jammu & Kashmir continue to aspire to join Pakistan? Why do millions of Hindus still reside in Sindh? Why do millions of Muslims still reside in India? Is the two nation theory really based around a Muslim-Hindu divide or is it something much deeper and complex?
To me, the two-nation theory in its present definition is flawed - flawed in the sense that it is too superficial and doesn't explain the ground realities of our region. There are indeed two nations in the subcontinent, but these two nations are not Muslims and Hindus...rather they are Indus and Gangetic nations.
What are the Indus and Gangetic nations you ask?
These are peoples and cultures which developed over a period of 5000 years along the River Indus and River Ganges respectively. The Harappan Civilization of the Indus Valley (modern-day Pakistan) is among the oldest and largest in the ancient world, and is often compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt for its grandeur and advanced society. A less advanced and smaller civilization also developed along the River Ganges in the Ganges plain (modern-day North India). The cultures that arose from these two rivers essentially created the two-nation theory…this was long before there was any Hinduism and Islam...and long before any Hindu king or Muslim emperor ruled the subcontinent.
The reality is, the two-nation theory is based on culture and not religion. While religion plays a role, it's not the prime differentiating factor. Remove Islam and Hinduism from the subcontinent and remove all man-made borders and guess what would happen? You would still have two nations! Think about it.
Have you ever wondered how odd certain regions of India are such as Kutch (in Gujarat), Thar (in Rajasthan) and Indian Punjab? When you observe people from these regions, they behave like Pakistanis rather than Indians. The reason is because these regions (Kutch, Thar and Indian Punjab) were traditionally bound to the Indus river and developed Indus cultures similar to those found in Sindh and Punjab today. Kutch is more culturally and historically related to Tharparkar region of Sindh than Gujarat. Similarly, the Thar desert region of Rajasthan is more culturally and historically related to Cholistan region of lower Punjab and upper Sindh than Rajasthan.
On the flip side, have you wondered how odd East Bengal looked in Pakistan? East Pakistan was an oddity because when we interacted with people from Bengal, they resembled Indians rather than Pakistanis. They looked different, spoke and wrote a completely different language, wore different clothing and ate different food. The reason is simple...Bengal is the end point of the River Ganges and hence a Gangetic nation, not an Indus nation. While politics played a big part in the debacle of 1971, subconsciously it was this split in culture (Indus vs Gangetic) that ultimately led to the conflict of interest between East and West Pakistan and hence the creation of Bangladesh. This then also explains why Jammu & Kashmir continues to have a love affair with Pakistan. Since Kashmir is an Indus nation, they show more affinity towards their Indus cousins in Pakistan rather than India.
So how did religion come to define the two-nation theory? There's three important factors we need to address:
#1. Indo-Aryan Migration & Vedic culture
As the Indo-Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1000 BC, along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices which syncretised (fused) with native Indus (Harappan) beliefs, giving rise to Vedic culture and Vedic tribes. The Vedic tribes during this period (1500 BC to 1200 BC) were a pastoral society centered exclusively in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Swat/Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few. Vedic culture and beliefs differ greatly from the version of Hinduism that formed in the Ganges plain (North India). The Vedic period consisted of gods which were mainly adopted or borrowed...especially from the Bactria–Margiana Culture in what is today Uzbekistan and Iran and from Zoroastrian beliefs. These early Vedic gods included Mitra (borrowed from Avestan Mithra), Varuna (borrowed from Avestan Ahura Mazda), Indra (borrowed from Zoroastrian Verethraghna) and the ritual Soma drink, borrowed from from the Bactria–Margiana culture in what is today Uzbekistan. Harappans ate beef, buried their dead, and had no Hindu temples/idols/deities.Vedic Aryans adopted this ideology and forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste system, and were culturally closer to ancient Avestan Iranians. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the Indus tell that the Vedic peoples worshiped these gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra), ate beef, elected their chiefs, drank liquor, considered Punjab's tributaries as sacred, and referred to people living in the east and south (Gangetic-Deccan region) as "dasyas". None of the Gangetic Brahmanical gods (Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in Vedic hymns nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite tablets. Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings. This battle took place on the banks of the River Ravi in 14th century BC (1300 BC) and was fought between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of ten tribes:
- Alinas (subtribe from Nuristan)
- Anu (subtribe from upper Punjab)
- Bhrigus (subtribe from Punjab)
- Bhalanas (subtribe from Bolan)
- Druhyus (subtribe from Swat)
- Matsya (subtribe from Cholistan)
- Parsu (subtribe from western Balochistan)
- Purus (subtribe from Thar)
- Panis (subtribe from Sibi)
- Bharatas (subtribe from upper Ravi of Punjab)
The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating. Up until 1200 BC, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (presumably the Dravidians). After 1200 BC, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BC, Vedic society transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture. Vedic tribes now had a choice to remain in the Indus Valley or migrate and settle in the Ganges plain. Some stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira while others left such as the Bharatas and the Purus. Many of the old tribes coalesced to form larger political units, such as the Kurus. Many of the migrating tribes broke Vedic norms and migrated east from the Indus to the Ganges. These numerically outnumbered groups expanding into the Gangetic plain tried to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order against the native Dravidians. Within a few generations of acquiring control over the Ganges, the minority Vedic tribes were usurped by the indigenous borrowed priesthood. Their Aryan Vedic religion, gods and customs were mostly deposed and supplanted with indigenous Gangetic gods and mythologies and their new social order (varna) replaced with the preexisting caste system. Through religious manipulation and intrigue, the Vedic incomers to the Ganges were usurped and made to surrender their political rule and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient servants of their Dravidian Brahmanas.
This migration marks an important division between Indus Vedic culture and Ganges Vedic culture. The Indus Vedic culture would remain quite authentic, whereas the Ganges Vedic culture would absorb Gangetic gods, giving rise to Puranic Hinduism...which today is the dominant form of Hinduism in India. Both Indus Vedic and Gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a 'clash of civilizations and nations' at the Ganges indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture and Brahmanical caste ideology.
#2. External factors
After the subsequent Indus-Ganges Vedic split, came the influence of external factors. In the Ganges plain, Vedic culture absorbed local Dravidian and Gangetic myths, gods and ideology to form Puranic Hinduism or Brahminism - a form Hinduism that is still practiced in North India today. In the Indus Valley however, Vedic ideology would remain. After 500 BC, the Indus Valley would come under the rule of the Greeks, Macedonians, Persians and Central Asian tribes and led to a "warping" of the primitive Indus Vedic culture, as its tribes and kingdoms would come under the influence of Hellenistic, Zoroastrian and Central Asian culture and beliefs. The Kalash tribe, Sindhu Kingdom (Sindhi Hindus) and Kashmiri Pandits are a perfect living example of how early Indus Vedic tribes absorbed and adopted these external beliefs and customs; instead of outright accepting foreign cultures and beliefs, a gradual meshing occurred over time. This constant absorbing and meshing of other beliefs produced a culture of acceptance and tolerance in the Indus Valley. This culture of tolerance would continue for centuries on wards in the Indus Valley, while in the Ganges plain the opposite would occur. Buddhism began spreading extensively during the late Mauryan Empire throughout much of South and Southeast Asia. While Buddhism was welcomed in many parts (such as the Indus Valley), it was not welcomed in the Ganges plain and subsequently after the collapse of the Mauryan Empire, the Shunga dynasty (a Brahmin dynasty based in Bihar) began persecuting Buddhists and forced many of them out of the Ganges plain towards the Himalayas (Nepal and Bhutan) or the Indus Valley (in particular Punjab and Kashmir). When we look at the complete history of the subcontinent, the general consensus and rule of thumb is that external beliefs and cultures were tolerated in the Indus Valley and shunned in the Ganges plain. Centuries later when Islam would arrive, the same would occur again, with Islam first being tolerated and then meshing with local culture in the Indus Valley, while being outright shunned in the Ganges plain. This explains why Islam became the dominant religion in the Indus Valley and why Pakistan is a majority Muslim country today. However, the important distinction to make here is that Islam did not define the split between Indus and Gangetic people. This split was formed over the centuries where an Indus nation accepted and tolerated while the Gangetic nation shunned and closed itself from the outside. Regardless of what religion people chose, it was these cultures that superseded all.
#3. Muslim League politics
The 3rd and most important factor is the Muslim League's usage of the religion card. The Muslim League used rising Muslim nationalism which began in the late 19th century to gain support for Pakistan...one could easily compare it to Barack Obama's "Yes We Can" motto and campaign where a "brand" was sold to the people. But the concept for this country is not what you have been made to believe. Pakistanis have horribly misunderstood the true concept and creation of the Muslim League. This political party was created for 3 main purposes:
The first was to build bridges between the Muslim community and British government, which had severely been dented during the 1857 War of Independence. Muslim leaders realized that violence would not solve anything and hence resorted to becoming politically active.
The second was to fight for civil rights of Muslims, which were denied to them under the British-Brahmin leadership of the British Raj after 1857.
The third was to forge good relationships with non-Muslim communities in the British Raj, particularly with the Hindu majority.
In the end, due to the stubbornness of Congress leaders (dominated by Brahmins), the Muslim League was left with no other option other than to support the creation of an independent majority Muslim country, where Muslims could live in freedom. Nowhere did the Muslim League (and Jinnah for that matter) advocate an Islamic country. They simply wanted a piece of territory to themselves where Muslims would not be subjected to 2nd class treatment and discriminatory laws.
~CONCLUSION~
On the surface and to the untrained eye, it may look as if Muslims and Hindus are two different nations, but that's a false conclusion to make. Underneath both these religions are two different cultural nations. You cannot tell the difference between a Sindhi Hindu and a Sindhi Muslim since they behave the same and speak the same language. Similarly, you cannot tell the difference between a Tamil Hindu and a Tamil Muslim for the same reasons. Furthermore, there are Hindus that live in South India and South East Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia etc.) and in the Indus Valley (Sindh, Kashmir, Kalash etc.) who differ from Hindus in North India by a great deal in terms of beliefs and culture. Let's compare and contrast; Hinduism in Pakistan can be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. In Sindh, the most revered god is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda. The Kalash tribe revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna. Kashmiri Pandits also worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani. In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman - all these gods were originally from Tamil or South Indian culture, which was adopted during the Vedic period in the Ganges plain. Vishnu on the other hand is a product of Ganges Vedic culture. Essentially, the early primitive Vedic religion is being practiced by Pakistani Hindus, whereas in North India the mature Vedic religion is being practiced...known today as Hinduism. The original Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna etc are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus.
The same argument could be said about the Muslims. The Muslim communities of the Indus Valley differ greatly in culture and overall attitude from their Muslim counterparts in North India or the Middle East. Such as the celebration of Chand Raat and Sufism.
The problem isn't actually Hinduism or Islam. The reality is, this Muslim-Hindu divide did not arise out of hatred for each religion. Rather the divide came about of the culture of the Ganges plain. It's this culture of intolerance and incivility which BOTH North Indian Hindus and North Indian Muslims share which led to the divide. It's not the inability of Hindus and Muslims to live together...rather it's the inability of North Indians to live together and behave in a civilized manner. What happens in North India should not be an excuse to behave the same in Pakistan or anywhere else. Many hardliners use tragic events in North India to justify discrimination against our Hindu community, and it should be condemned at all costs. Pakistani Hindus are more closely related to Pakistani Muslims than any North Indian Muslim ever could...genetically, culturally and historically. In the end, how does the "Two-Nation Theory" hold up when religion is the prime differentiating factor? It fails. But when you factor the two cultures (Indus and Gangetic) into the equation, the theory makes more sense.
~MOVING FORWARD~
To use the Two-Nation Theory (as it's presently defined) to defend Pakistan's existence is futile. The movement for Pakistan achieved its objective in 1947...now we need to move on. We don't have a non-Muslim majority threatening Muslims anymore, so we cant use the two-nation theory for our internal challenges. Pakistan needs to celebrate its Indus culture and long celebrated Indus history of acceptance and tolerance and truly form into a united multi-ethnic nation, rather than this "Islamic Republic" which we are being forced fed. This is why I believe the two-nation theory should be redefined to the cultural two nation theory.
